Human achievement is the only measure of university quality

The recent discussions about university merger have raised a fundamental issue: what is in a university? The proposal of mergers necessarily raises the question of 'why' and 'what for'. Unfortunately, these are the least discussed in the press.

The ways and procedures the proposal has raised and whether academic and institutional autonomy have been infringed have been widely discussed. These are legitimate concerns. However, the rationale for a merger is only vaguely mentioned.

The usual business merger and acquisition often refers to efficiency gains and reduction of unnecessary competition. Although efficiency could be an argument for a university merger, the gain is not straightforward. There are conflicting messages about efficiency gains from merger experiences in China and Australia. In many examples, it was mainly an exercise of administrative re-engineering; and in most cases, there was little calculation of costs and benefits.

The competition issue is interesting. There are criticisms in the Sutherland report about the number of institutions in Hong Kong. There is an assertion that we cannot afford too many and only the selected few could be 'world-class', now echoed by merger supporters. There is a subtle presumption that if we want better institutions, we have to have fewer. There are simply too many for a small city like Hong Kong. Such an argument is worrying. If institutions serve Hong Kong alone, we have indeed to worry about competition. However, few successful higher learning institutions, let alone 'world-class' universities, serve only a local community of seven million. We don't have to refer to Oxford and Cambridge in the UK or the Ivy League institutions in the US, where the students come from all over the world. Even for mainland cities such as Beijing and Shanghai, their leading institutions serve students from all over the country, and their graduates serve different parts of the nation. Beijing and Shanghai now host 58 and 32 institutions respectively.

Some universities in Hong Kong are already quite international by world standard, and many have potential to become more so. It is ironical that in a proclaimed metropolitan city like Hong Kong, higher education is seen by decision-makers as a local enterprise. However, if Hong Kong sees itself also as an 'education hub', as is from time to time mentioned by the leaders, then each of the institutions could aspire to be very international. Seen from this angle, there are too few rather than too many institutions of higher learning here.

But the real issue lies far beyond efficiency and competition. Efficiency in running a university is at best good management of resources, but is only a means to an end. Nor is competition a goal by itself.

The natural question is, competition in what and for what? Recently, in the process of preparing a book about graduates of the University of Hong Kong, I came across John Henry Newman's The Idea of a University, a classic published in 1852. Newman places great emphasis on students. He argues that if universities are only places for 'scientific and philosophical discovery, I do not see why universities should have students'. Although the context has changed, it is still very true that a good university sustains its excellence because of its students, and hence graduates.